ok so couple stub sneers I thought of when reading this:
One way to look at EA is as an extension of the middle-manager's syndrome of injecting metrics everywhere to allow them to spin up narratives of growth and improvement to justify their existence. I can't decide who I hate more!
following on from 1, it's kind of funny that the EAs, who you could pattern match to a "high school nerd" stereotype, are intellectually beaten out by an analog of the "jock" stereotype of sports fans: fantasy league participants who understand the concept of "intangibles" that EAs apparently cannot grasp.
it absolutely tracks that EAs, who see charities that spend money on administrating themselves as inefficient and incompetent, are dumbfounded and bereft of answers when any of their organisations implode
E: linking 1 and 3: together: EAs are self hating middle managers.
following on from 1, it’s kind of funny that the EAs, who you could pattern match to a “high school nerd” stereotype, are intellectually beaten out by an analog of the “jock” stereotype of sports fans: fantasy league participants who understand the concept of “intangibles” that EAs apparently cannot grasp.
On a wider note, it feels the "geek/nerd" moniker's lost a whole lot of cultural cachet since its peak in the mid-'10s. It is a topic Sarah Z has touched on, but I could probably make a full goodpost about it.
Haven't watched Z's video, but I'd also note I'm deeply sceptical that the nerd/jock distinction was ever real past maybe the 90s.
In my own school (and those of all the people I've discussed it with), if you were in advanced classes, you almost always played a sport. Even geeky interests - like video games, some anime (Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon), and to a lesser extent comics - were incredibly popular. There were cliques, but those cliques were normally personality and friend based rather than academic vs. sport. If there were a divide, it was between those who were socially skilled and those who were not, but that didn't neatly map onto whether you were smart or not.
Even as a kid, I mostly thought of the nerd/jock stuff as being a marketing ploy, rather than reflecting my own experiences. Which isn't to say you wouldn't get people identifying as nerds or geeks, but to say that the actual social reality didn't seem to match.
To grasp how disastrously an apparently altruistic movement has run off course, consider that the value of organizations that provide healthy vegan food within their underserved communities are ignored as an area of funding because EA metrics can’t measure their “effectiveness.” Or how covering the costs of caring for survivors of industrial animal farming in sanctuaries is seen as a bad use of funds. Or how funding an “effective” organization’s expansion into another country encourages colonialist interventions that impose elite institutional structures and sideline community groups whose local histories and situated knowledges are invaluable guides to meaningful action.
Nice. Kind of reminds me of a segment in Ken Burns' Vietnam documentary where to eradicate the Viet Kong, American military intelligence organizations became obsessed with body counts as a measure of 'winning' the war, so then the effect on the ground became shooting civs so we can count more bodies. The metric you use as a proxy for doing good (I've donated x dollars to combat homelessness while working for blackrock :)) isn't aligned with your desired outcome.
Hey, wait a minute, were EAs the misaligned entity all along??
(your shocked Pikachu was borked, I ended up fixing it out of frustration. Took me a couple attempts - standard formatting fucks it up no matter what, but code's kinder to it)
On a related note, shout-out to the banner image of a neatly spaced rectangular grid of trees, the one part of the book that if I remember right Scooter did actually read and sort of understand, even if he was unable to generalize beyond early modern forestry.
Ironically that review was where I first encountered the work of the late James Scott.